The Logical Approach To Reform: Reduce The Cost Of Campaigning

OUR VIEWS

April 1, 1997|By Charley Reese of The Sentinel Staff

It seems to me that the subject of campaign-finance reform is being approached in an illogical manner.

The basic problem is that it costs a lot of money to run for office. If it costs, for example, $300,000 to run for Congress, then no matter what laws we pass, the ambitious candidate will find a way to get $300,000 by hook or crook. Otherwise there would be no point in running.

Therefore, we must think of ways to reduce the cost of campaigning. Most campaign money goes for advertising, staff, transportation and polling. All of that is, in one way or another, directed at communicating with the voter.

Because of population growth, communicating is expensive. The average congressional district has about 600,000 people. In most states, Senate candidates have constituencies numbered in the millions. Radio and television stations don't give away their time, nor do newspapers and magazines give away their space. Probably the lion's share of all campaign expenditures goes into the cash registers of the news media.

Because we are a free society and cannot force private businesses to give away their time and space, we have to think of other ways to reduce this cost of communicating with the voters. Here are a few suggestions:

First, reduce the number of voters. I'm serious. The universal franchise in which we allow the most ignorant and illiterate people to choose government leaders is one of the more stupid features of egalitarianism. It is a blatant invitation to demagoguery and corruption.

We could, for example, require anyone wishing to vote to pass the same test immigrants are required to pass to become citizens. Surely, no native-born American could object to demonstrating the same knowledge he requires an immigrant to demonstrate in order to become a citizen.

People who don't vote in, say, two successive elections should have their names removed from the voter-registration list. To

re-register, they should have to appear in person, pay a fee and retake the test. Those two steps, neither of which would discriminate against anyone, probably would reduce the voter registration rolls quite a bit.

Second, we could limit campaign spending to a narrow time frame - say, the eight weeks before Election Day. This would reduce some of the advantage of the giant war chest, which is chiefly the ability to start spending early and to spend longer than your opponent can afford. It would also, because of the limits of time and space available, reduce the amount of money spent.

Another advantage of limiting expenditures to a short time frame is that doing so would focus public attention on the election. Surely one contributor to public apathy is boredom with what amounts to seemingly perpetual political campaigns.

Although it would be hard to enforce, another idea I've advocated for years is to allow campaign contributions only from residents within the candidate's district or state. This needs to be done for the sake of justice if for no other reason. It is ridiculous to let a bunch of rich people in Hollywood or New York pour money into somebody else's state elections.

Finally, campaign contributions should be allowed only from individuals. We should eliminate all political-action committees. Most of them are fraudulent on their face. They purport to be the pooling of individuals, but few really are. They are just a vehicle for fat cats and organizations to pour money into races. We should forbid the expenditure of any money by unions or other organizations, especially lobbying groups - either profit or nonprofit - in political campaigns.

The government belongs to the American people as individuals. They should finance it. They should elect it. And to them only should it be accountable.